From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF04610E3F2 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 14:32:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:31:40 +0100 Content-Language: pl To: Michal Wajdeczko , References: <20231106195947.14640-1-lukasz.laguna@intel.com> <20231106195947.14640-8-lukasz.laguna@intel.com> From: "Laguna, Lukasz" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 7/8] tests/sriov_basic: validate driver binding to VFs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: On 11/10/2023 20:44, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > > On 09.11.2023 08:06, Laguna, Lukasz wrote: >> On 11/6/2023 23:59, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: >>> On 06.11.2023 20:59, Lukasz Laguna wrote: >>>> From: Katarzyna Dec >>>> >>>> Test enables VFs in range <1..totalvfs>, bind driver to all of them and >>>> then unbind driver from all of them. >>> commit message seems outdated >> What do you mean? I don't see anything wrong >>>> Signed-off-by: Katarzyna Dec >>>> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Laguna >>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Laguna >>>> Reviewed-by: Marcin Bernatowicz >>>> --- >>>>   tests/sriov_basic.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>   1 file changed, 51 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tests/sriov_basic.c b/tests/sriov_basic.c >>>> index fc0914962..179731daf 100644 >>>> --- a/tests/sriov_basic.c >>>> +++ b/tests/sriov_basic.c >>>> @@ -61,6 +61,38 @@ static void probe_disable_vfs(int pf_fd, unsigned >>>> int num_vfs) >>>>       igt_assert(!err); >>>>   } >>>>   +/** >>>> + * SUBTEST: enable-vfs-bind-all-unbind-all >>>> + * Description: >>>> + *   Verify VFs enabling, binding the driver and then unbinding it >>>> from all of them >>>> + */ >>>> +static void enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(int pf_fd, unsigned int >>>> num_vfs) >>>> +{ >>>> +    igt_debug("Using num_vfs=%u\n", num_vfs); >>> nit: "Testing %u VFs" ? >> Done >>>> + >>>> +    igt_require(igt_sriov_get_enabled_vfs(pf_fd) == 0); >>> duplicates main fixture >> As already answered in different patch - first fixtureis not executed >> between dynamic subtests. >>>> +    igt_warn_on(!igt_sriov_disable_driver_autoprobe(pf_fd)); >>>> +    igt_skip_on(igt_sriov_is_driver_autoprobe_enabled(pf_fd)); >>> why do we need warn/skip here ? >>> can't we just assert that 'disable' worked ? >> Done >>>> + >>>> +    igt_warn_on(!igt_sriov_enable_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs)); >>> can't we just assert ? >> Done >>>> +    igt_assert_eq(num_vfs, igt_sriov_get_enabled_vfs(pf_fd)); >>> why we care here ? if not all are enabled then we fail just later >>> and this is not a test for "enable VFs" that enabled==requested >> Done >>>> +    igt_warn_on(!igt_sriov_enable_driver_autoprobe(pf_fd)); >>>> +    igt_assert(igt_sriov_is_driver_autoprobe_enabled(pf_fd)); >>> can't we just warn ? >>> if that we fail to enable then probe below will fail anyway >> Done >>>> + >>>> +    for (int i = 1; i <= num_vfs; i++) { >>>> +        igt_assert(!igt_sriov_is_vf_drm_driver_probed(pf_fd, i)); >>>> +        igt_assert(igt_sriov_bind_vf_drm_driver(pf_fd, i)); >>>> +        igt_assert(igt_sriov_is_vf_drm_driver_probed(pf_fd, i)); >>> shouldn't we just "expect" to make sure to call "disable VFs" ? >> VFs will be disabled in exit fixture. VFs disabling in subtest is needed >> between dynamic subtests. > but if test passed, then it should do a proper cleanup > > maybe problem is that if something went wrong, your igt_assert() aborts > current test which doesn't have a chance to do proper cleanup ? > > or maybe that cleanup should be in some mid-test fixture ? > > anyway, just seems broken that we need to duplicate the code/logic every > time > >>>> +    } >>>> + >>>> +    for (int i = 1; i <= num_vfs; i++) { >>>> +        igt_assert(igt_sriov_unbind_vf_drm_driver(pf_fd, i)); >>>> +        igt_assert(!igt_sriov_is_vf_drm_driver_probed(pf_fd, i)); >>> do we need to have all VFs loaded ? >>> maybe for BAT test we can just bind/unload one VF at the time ? >> We have such test as well: >> [PATCH i-g-t 8/8] tests/sriov_basic: add more tests for VF driver binding >>     SUBTEST: enable-vfs-bind-unbind-each >>     SUBTEST: bind-unbind-vf > that's good > > but the question is still open? > what the benefit of having this test which just open-coded the VF probe > loop that would be otherwise done by the PCI subsystem ? > > and again, like autoprobe-on, this doesn't seem good candidate for "BAT" > runs, more like a "STRESS" Done >>> otherwise it will be almost the same level of stress as in >>> "enable-vfs-autoprobe-on" but with 'manual probe' loop of all VFs >>> >>>> +    } >>>> + >>>> +    igt_assert(igt_sriov_disable_vfs(pf_fd)); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>>   igt_main >>>>   { >>>>       int pf_fd; >>>> @@ -113,6 +145,25 @@ igt_main >>>>           } >>>>       } >>>>   +    igt_describe("Verify VFs enabling, binding the driver and then >>>> unbinding it from all of them"); >>>> +    igt_subtest_with_dynamic("enable-vfs-bind-all-unbind-all") { >>>> +        for_each_num_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs) { >>>> +            igt_dynamic_f("numvfs-%u", num_vfs) { >>>> +                enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(pf_fd, num_vfs); >>>> +            } >>>> +        } >>>> +        for_random_num_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs) { >>>> +            igt_dynamic_f("numvfs-random") { >>>> +                enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(pf_fd, num_vfs); >>>> +            } >>>> +        } >>>> +        for_max_num_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs) { >>>> +            igt_dynamic_f("numvfs-all") { >>>> +                enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(pf_fd, num_vfs); >>>> +            } >>>> +        } >>>> +    } >>>> + >>>>       igt_fixture { >>>>           igt_sriov_disable_vfs(pf_fd); >>>>           /* abort to avoid execution of next tests with enabled VFs */